90 309. Several of the children mentioned above had to leave their homes, their schooling was disrupted, and they were torn away from their community circle of friends at a young age. Bárbara del Sol, Úrsula Manuela, Valentina Estefanía, and Migdalia Andrea, were unable to return to their original home because of the serious security situation that still affects Comuna 13 and because of great economic want. The girls were also affected by the gaps in the humanitarian aid received by their respective mothers. The IACHR also deeply regrets that the grandson of Ms. Mosquera – Lubín Alfonso – was murdered a few years later, when he was only 14 years of age.440 Ms. Mosquera also testified how Marlon Daniel Herrera Mosquera stays at home for weeks on end out of fear, and as she puts it: “never leaves because he is afraid that something will happen to him.”441 310. The Commission views that under the purview of its duty to prevent forced displacement, the State had an obligation of heightened protection toward the affected children. This obligation includes adopting measures aimed at meeting their special needs during the displacement. Nothing in the case file before the IACHR leads to believe that the State made any reasonable effort to adopt the aforementioned measures. 311. In view of the foregoing, the IACHR finds that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 22, in connection with Articles 19 and 1.1, to the detriment of the children Bárbara del Sol Palacios Rúa; Úrsula Manuela Palacios Rúa; Valentina Estefanía Tobón Rúa; Migdalia Andrea Hoyos Ospina; Lubin Alfonso Villa Mosquera; and Marlon Daniel Herrera Mosquera. E. Right to Property (Articles 21.1 and 2442), in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention 312. The Court has addressed the appropriation and destruction of homes by armed actors in the context of the armed conflict in Colombia as acts overtly violating Article 21 of the American Convention.443 Moreover, it has cited the prohibitions set forth in Article 13 (Protection of the civilian population) and 14 (Protection of the objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population) of Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions.444 440 IACHR, Request to expand provisional measures before the Honorable Inter-American Court of Human Rights in reference to the Matter of Mery Naranjo et al – Comuna 13, Colombia, March 3, 2011; Decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Matter of Mery Naranjo et al – Comuna 13, Colombia, March 4, 2011. 441 Annex 78. Statement of María del Socorro Mosquera received by GIDH c addressed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, on May 2, 2012. 442 Article 21 of the American Convention establishes in the relevant portion that: 1. Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society. 2. No one shall be deprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and in the cases and according to the forms established by law. 443 IA Court of HR, Case of the Massacres of Ituango v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, pars. 179-180. 444 IA Court of HR, Case of the Massacres of Ituango v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, pars. 179-180.